Literature DB >> 12962848

Advantages of the piggy back technique on intraoperative transfusion, fluid compsumption, and vasoactive drugs requirements in liver transplantation: a comparative study.

E Moreno-Gonzalez1, J G Meneu-Diaz, Y Fundora, P Ortega, A Moreno Elola-Olaso, I García García, C Jimenez Romero, C Loinaz, R Gomez Sanz, M Abradelo.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The piggyback technique was first described in adult liver transplantation in 1989, although it has been used in conjunction with venous bypass, with cross-clamping the vena cava, or both. In this study, the inferior vena cava was not occluded at any time during the liver transplant.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the use of intraoperative blood products, fluid requirements, and vasoactive drugs among patients managed with bypass, without bypass, and with the piggyback technique.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between May 1986 and October 2002, 875 liver transplants included 50 patients divided into three groups (cases considered to be the preliminary series on each group): group A/piggyback (17 patients:34%), group B/ bypass (16 patients: 32%), and group C/no bypass (17 patients:34%). There were no differences in mean age, gender, UNOS or Child-Pugh score, and indications for liver transplantation.
RESULTS: Mean follow up was 134.63+/-32.19 months. At the end of the study, 91.3% of the patients are alive with no operative mortality. There were no differences in postoperative complications, postreperfusion syndrome rate, and postoperative renal failure. However, the number of packed red blood cell units consumed intraoperatively (12+/-7.43 vs 18.03+/-11.46 vs 17.59 +/- 23.8; P =.043), the need for intraoperative crystaloids (3.1 L+/-1.6 vs 6.8+/-4.8 vs 9.1 L+/-3.6; P=.001) and the requirement for vasoactive drugs (18% vs 38% vs 24%; P=.043) was notably lower in group A vs group B vs group C. Operative time was longer in group A (121.54+/-37.77 vs 78.73+/-11.89 vs 87.07+/-14.33 minutes).
CONCLUSIONS: The piggyback technique requires a longer operative time but offers the advantages of reducing the red blood cell requirements and preventing severe hemodynamic instability by virtue of reducing the need for vasoactive drugs and for a larger volume of intraoperative fluids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12962848     DOI: 10.1016/s0041-1345(03)00600-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplant Proc        ISSN: 0041-1345            Impact factor:   1.066


  6 in total

1.  Results of a newborn liver transplant program in the era of piggyback technique and extended donor criteria in Italy.

Authors:  Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Roberto Santoro; Giovanni Vennarecci; Pasquale Lepiane; Mario Antonini; Eugenio Santoro
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2011-07-19

2.  Effects of low central venous pressure during preanhepatic phase on blood loss and liver and renal function in liver transplantation.

Authors:  Zhi-Ying Feng; Xiao Xu; Sheng-Mei Zhu; Berthold Bein; Shu-Sen Zheng
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  Temporary Intraoperative Porto-Caval Shunts in Piggy-Back Liver Transplantation Reduce Intraoperative Blood Loss and Improve Postoperative Transaminases and Renal Function: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sebastian Pratschke; Alexandra Rauch; Markus Albertsmeier; Markus Rentsch; Michaela Kirschneck; Joachim Andrassy; Michael Thomas; Werner Hartwig; Joan Figueras; Juan Del Rio Martin; Nicola De Ruvo; Jens Werner; Markus Guba; Maximilian Weniger; Martin K Angele
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Hepatic Venous Outflow and Renal Function after Conventional versus Piggyback Liver Transplantation.

Authors:  Marília D'Elboux Guimarães Brescia; Paulo Celso Bosco Massarollo; Ernesto Sasaki Imakuma; Sérgio Mies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  An analysis of tacrolimus-related complications in the first 30 days after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Lucas Souto Nacif; André Ibrahim David; Rafael Soares Pinheiro; Marcio Augusto Diniz; Wellington Andraus; Ruy Jorge Cruz; Luiz A Carneiro D'Albuquerque
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 2.365

6.  Liver Transplantation Without Venovenous Bypass: Does Surgical Approach Matter?

Authors:  Andrew S Barbas; Jordan Levy; Michael S Mulvihill; Nicolas Goldaracena; Martin J Dib; David P Al-Adra; Mark S Cattral; Anand Ghanekar; Paul D Greig; David R Grant; Gonzalo Sapisochin; Markus Selzner; Stuart A McCluskey; Ian D McGilvray
Journal:  Transplant Direct       Date:  2018-04-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.